Dears,
The problem of Ars Electronica is known for a long time. It adds
up. It can't however not be generalized for the field, as Olia
already pointed out. What might be at stake is a discussion about
festival culture. As much as I value festivals as a meeting space,
a community of media artists, I'm often underwhelmed when it comes
to the art and the curation of the festivals' exhibitions.
In contrary permanent exhibition spaces do a better job since
they have a well established curatorial staff who ideally knows
how to deal with questions of presentation and representation in
an exhibition space. It then boils down to the question what
notion of media art the curators adhere. In this field I have
indeed seen very good exhibitions and artworks.
Returning to the festivals: A problem to me seems when a festival
exhibition is not curated according to a curatorial concept, but
simply from the entries of the open call. This approach, as
democratic as it is, seems to favor tech demo art. It also leads
to non-conceptual curatorial execution, where basically each piece
is presented in a exhibition-box style, comparable to art fairs.
Another problem seems that festivals often have smallish
production budgets compared to their large ambition. Third parties
step in: Industry sponsors or universities. This shapes what kind
of artworks are shown at festivals. While student sections may
present one or the other fresh idea, they are (necessarily) naive.
Oh Lord, let's not mention my naive art works while I was a
student. So we see a lot of repetition and it's a systemic
problem.
When Alexei Shulgin in 1997 argued against interactive art, sadly his warning wasn't heard. "It seems that manipulation is the only way of communication they [people] know and appreciate. They are very happily following a few options given to them by artists: press left or right button, jump or sit. Artist use this … based on banal will of power. " Shulgin 1997:267 (full text here: https://twitter.com/databaseculture/status/1136256115652603904)
One recent example of how valid Shulgins comments are, has been the "AI: More than human" show at Barbican Centre. Guess who sponsored it. You were able to "provide Es Devlin's AI with a word and it will create a unique poem" and "dance along Universal Everything's avatar and see if you can keep up".* Uuugh. See this promotional video: https://artsandculture.google.com/project/ai-more-than-human
What we might agree on, is that the field of media art often
misses the poetic moments, the affective, the humanistic. I know
that parts of the field are not interested in it. However Netflix
can't be the answer.
The good news for Lev is, that he didn't waste his last 30 years,
he only wasted it on one week of Ars Electronica.
best,
Francis
* sorry for singling out these two, this was just an example at
hand standing in for "sadly" many more.
"Sad by Manovich" or "Sad by Ars Electronica" ;)
Six false statements in four sentences is a lot!
"New media art never deals with human life, and this is why it does not enter museums. It's our fault. Don't blame curators or the "art world." Digital art is "anti-human art," and this is why it does not stay in history. //"
---- Geert Lovink wrote ----
URL or not but this is too good, and too important for nettimers, not to read and discuss. These very personal and relevant observations come from a public Facebook page and have been written by Lev Manovich (who is “feeling thoughtful” as the page indicates).
—
My anti-digital art manifesto / What do we feel when we look at the previous generations of electronic and computer technologies? 1940s TV sets, 1960s mainframes, 1980s PCs, 1990s versions of Windows, or 2000s mobile phones? I feel "embarrassed. "Awkward." Almost "shameful." "Sad." And this is exactly the same feelings I have looking at 99% of digital art/computer art / new media art/media art created in previous decades. And I will feel the same when looking at the most cutting-edge art done today ("AI art," etc.) 5 years from now.If consumer products have "planned obsolescence," digital art created with the "latest" technology has its own "built-in obsolescence." //
These feelings of sadness, disappointment,
remorse, and embarrassment have been provoked especially this week as I am watching Ars Electronica programs every day. I start wondering - did I waste my whole life in the wrong field? It is very exciting to be at the "cutting edge", but the price you pay is heavy. After 30 years in this field, there are very few artworks I can show to my students without feeling embarrassed. While I remember why there were so important to us at the moment they were made, their low-resolution visuals and broken links can't inspire students. // The same is often true for the "content" of digital art. It's about "issues," "impact of X on Y", "critique of A", "a parody of B", "community of C" and so on. //
It's almost never about our real everyday life and our humanity. Feelings. Passions. Looking at the world. Looking inside yourself. Falling in love. Breaking up. Questioning yourself. Searching for love, meaning, less alienated life.//
After I watch Ars Electronica streams, I go to Netflix or switch on the TV, and it feels like fresh air. I see very well made films and TV series. Perfectly lighted, color graded, art directed.
I see real people, not "ideas" and meaningless sounds of yet another "electronic music" performance, or yet another meaningless outputs of a neural network invented by brilliant scientists and badly misused by "artists."
New media art never deals with human life, and this is why it does not enter museums. It's our fault. Don't blame curators or the "art world." Digital art is "anti-human art," and this is why it does not stay in history. //
P.S. As always, I exaggerated a bit my point to provoke discussion - but not that much. This post does reflect my real feelings. Of course, some of these issues are complex - but after 30 years in the field, I really do wonder what it was all about)
P.P.S.
The mystery of why some technology (and art made with them) has obsolescence and others do not - thinking about this for 25 years. We are fascinated by 19th-century photographs or 1960s ones. They look beautiful, rich, full of emotions, and meanings. But video art from the 1980s-1990s looks simply terrible, you want to run away and forget that you ever saw this. Why first Apple computers look cool, cute, engaged? But art created on them does not? And so on. I still have not solved this question.
Perhaps part of this has to be with the message that goes along with lots of tech art from the 1960s to today - and especially today. 19th or 20th-century photographs done by professional photographs or good amateurs do not come with utopian, pretentious, exaggerated, unrealistic, and hypocritical statements, the way lots of "progressive art" does today. Nor do their titles announce all latest tech processes used to create these photographs.
---------------
-----
Ars Electronica 2020:
https://ars.electronica. art/ keplersgardens/ en/ ---------------
-----
Video illustration: Japanese robot at Ars Electronica 2010 -
https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=mmabKC1P 51A
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
-- http://www.irmielin.org http://databasecultures.irmielin.org
https://twitter.com/databaseculture
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
